The New York State Initiative for Accountability, a non-profit watchdog over government with strong backing from labor unions, is feverishly pushing in the last days of this legislative session for reforms in how local industrial-development agencies are doing business. We support several of the initiative's recommendations conceptually, though we must emphasize that we haven't seen the abuses locally that the group reports are systemic state-wide.

The initiative is upset that Wal-Mart, for example, can receive local tax breaks -- at taxpayers' expense, obviously -- to build its empire. IDAs and Empire Zones offer various forms of tax forgiveness that directly or indirectly cost property taxpayers.

Why should taxpayers have to make up lost tax revenue when an industry is granted a tax forgiveness to go into an area based on a promise to hire 50 employees, say, if the firm winds up hiring only 25 and paying minimum wage? (Clinton County several years ago rejected a request for tax breaks for Canadian Button, because the company was proposing to pay what were regarded as substandard wages.)

Here are the reforms the initiative is proposing to become state law in the last days and hours of the session:

In order to receive IDA-brokered tax breaks, firms must guarantee living wages.

Firms must agree to regional hiring requirements and apprenticeship programs for local workers.

Firms must comply with anti-sprawl development and high-performance building standards.

Firms must agree to "clawbacks," or repayment of forgiven taxes if they don't meet promised hiring and wage levels.

IDA boards must include representatives of any taxing jurisdiction that will be affected by payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTs) to be granted, as well as unions and community and environmental groups.

Local competition among IDAs should be eliminated. It does a community or state no good for one IDA to spend time and money competing with another for the same industry and jobs.

Community-impact reports should be required when an industry applies for a PILOT. Can the taxing entities afford all the ramifications of granting the PILOT and hosting the company?

IDA projects should be monitored to be sure they live up to promises.

Public hearings on IDA projects, already required by law, should be held at times convenient to the public, a condition the initiative maintains is not currently in effect.

Who could argue with these provisions -- at least, most of them? Surely, strict adherence would be good for any community.

The initiative would also like to see the state's 115 IDAs pared considerably to yield more efficient, regional efforts.